Friday, February 01, 2013

Curt Shilling, a former pitcher with a career in baseball spanning 20-years, said in a series of tweets, that he did not understand why there was such an issue in professional sports with players coming out.

He also said that he had played alongside gay players, and that it did not matter, and that their performance on the pitch was the important issue.

Mr Shilling said: “I’ve never understood this ‘issue’ with gay players? Who cares? I know I played with some, their sexual orientation never had much to …To do with how they hit with RISP, or pitched in late and close situations, why the hell would what they do in the bedroom ever matter?”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I personally don't underestand how you can consider sexual intercourse - that which an absolute result of, no matter what you parse, is procreation - something that a man didn't decide to do. I know, I know, Roe has decided this and therefore that is thus. I understand your reasoning, but I simply don't agree it follows.

EDIT: So I take that back, I guess I do understand, I simply disagree with your line of reasoning.

So you don't agree with Roe's framework of second trimester viability?

The entire panoply of family law (divorce, property settlement, custody, support, alimony) is very much weighted in the female's favor.

For the most part, women don't pay child support, even when they don't have custody, to nearly the extent men do. This means that men are stuck trying to support two families. Of course, that means that some men don't pay or don't pay all they owe.

This isn't even getting into how the computations for child support can be really outlandish.

None of this has anything to do with the central point or the principle involved.

The point is (obviously in my opinion) to do what is right for the child. I am not suggesting our current system is optimal for the child. However removing child support payments either makes the child's situation worse or has definite freeloading consequences (or both).

If the current situation is unfair to men and overly generous to women (which I am not stating, btw) and is still best for the child then I am in favor of it. If making the system worse for woman and better for men results in better results for the child then I am in favor of that. If someone can suggest why no child support responsibility works out great for the child, then I say we discuss that.

Basically I support changes to the current system that favor the children, the adults who through there own freely made choices became parents can pay the price.

NOTE: BTW Morty in MN in my experience things are much more simple, direct, and have much less gender bias. As I stated before MN has guidelines which are almost always followed (Judges do have leeway, but my understanding is they only depart from the calculator in rare instances).

Maybe, but the point is that the decision is biased if the woman has a 21-year claim on the father's earnings. It's self-evidently grossly unfair to give the man no say during the window of potential abortion, and then garnishing his wages based on a decision in which he had no input.

I'd separate the two questions. The first one (to bear or not bear the child) should remain with the person doing the bearing, since otherwise you're getting into Chinese government territory. The second (determining the responsibility for financial support) should be based on the two parents' respective abilities to provide it, on the principle that the child's interest is more important than any abstract governing principle between two adults.

The answer is some kind of enforceable pre-intercourse agreement in which the man and woman can have the post-f$ck world governed by the same rules that would govern if she'd been anonymously artifically inseminated.

The new three-way? Boy, girl, notary. :>)

Relations between males and females more and more remind me of the New Yorker cartoon: a huge dinner table, formally laid out, placing name cards next to the dinnerware: "boy, attorney, girl, attorney, boy, attorney...."

I'd separate the two questions. The first one (to bear or not bear the child) should remain with the person doing the bearing, since otherwise you're getting into Chinese government territory. The second (determining the responsibility for financial support) should be based on the two parents' respective abilities to provide it, on the principle that the child's interest is more important than any abstract principle between two adults.

Sure, as long as the man has an equal entitlement to be the home/primary custody parent.

I'd separate the two questions. The first one (to bear or not bear the child) should remain with the person doing the bearing, since otherwise you're getting into Chinese government territory. The second (determining the responsibility for financial support) should be based on the two parents' respective abilities to provide it, on the principle that the child's interest is more important than any abstract principle between two adults.

Sure, as long as the man has an equal entitlement to be the home/primary custody parent.

I'd agree that the man should get equal consideration to be the primary custody parent. Beyond that, I think it should be decided on a case-by-case basis, with the overriding consideration being the overall best interests of the child. That would include several factors, financial resources among them. But if the man didn't want the child to be born in the first place, that's certainly another factor to consider.

Why not? Is abortion not a decision point in the process of deciding to or not to have a child?

Child support is about ... duh ... supporting the child in accordance with what is best for that child according to societal norms.

Abortion is about a medical procedure and considers such things as the right of self determiniation of a woman and her body. Nothing regarding the medical procedure abrogates the child's right to have done what is best for it.

I'd separate the two questions. The first one (to bear or not bear the child) should remain with the person doing the bearing, since otherwise you're getting into Chinese government territory. The second (determining the responsibility for financial support) should be based on the two parents' respective abilities to provide it, on the principle that the child's interest is more important than any abstract governing principle between two adults.

The second question still biases the first, because the relative financial status of the parties is known at the time the decision is made. Nor whould the woman be allowed to speculate on the man's future earning potential.

The man being able to opt out of parental rights and obligations at the time of the decision doesn't get anywhere near "Chinese government territory." He can't force the woman to have an abortion; he can simply opt out of being a parent legally, in much the same way that the sperm donor does.

The woman has no more claim on the donor of sperm through PIVS than she does the sperm bank donor. The only reason the two are distinguished is to penalize the man for being allowed to know the woman carnally. That's a ludicrous, anachronistic, and paternalistic state of affairs.

The answer is some kind of enforceable pre-intercourse agreement in which the man and woman can have the post-f$ck world governed by the same rules that would govern if she'd been anonymously artifically inseminated.

So long as there is a financial cost to this - sort of a child support insurance pool - to defray societies incurred cost in providing for the children born after such an agreement, then I have no problem with this. Both male and female would sign off (not sure how custody gets established, porbably at signing), and any children would be financially taken care of by the insurance paid for by all the agreements.

It would still be cheaper than artificial insemination I suspect, and cheaper than having to pay child support for those that have progeny, but more expensive for those that skate throgh without progeny.

Works for me, though clearly actually parenting any children one has would be better, but you can't mandate people be good people who are willing to parent.

Ah yes. "Societal norms." Which means that any concept of justice or moral reasoning must be jettisoned to make sure "deadbeat dads" are punished for taking advantage of those poor women. No.

Sam, the societal norm applies to what is best for the child, just like I wrote. I have been very consistent in advocating for the child, and have zero interest in punishing dead beat dads relative to the the welfare of the children. You keep wanting to bring in the punishment angle, but it is a distraction at best.

The key element at work here is simple; at what point is the decision to have a pregnancy taken to term and become a child made? Who makes that decision?

Nope. The key decision is the having sex. A decision does get made as to if the woman wants to have a medical procedure done which does a favor to the man and removes his established obligation, but that is secondary. The key principle is do what is best for the child.

Works for me, though clearly actually parenting any children one has would be better, but you can't mandate people be good people who are willing to parent.

The preferred solution is a utopian world where no one has children they don't want. This is best accomplished by universally available birth control and morning after pills, and eventually (one would like to hope) availability of RISUG for men in the west. At which point the ability to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want, or force a man to support a child he doesn't want, essentially disappears.

Nope. The key decision is the having sex. A decision does get made as to if the woman wants to have a medical procedure done which does a favor to the man and removes his established obligation, but that is secondary. The key principle is do what is best for the child.

So, gays don't have any complaints about not being able to get married in Alabama until such time as Alabama allows gay marriage? Women had no complain about not being able to vote until such time they were being able to?

The phrase "societal norms" always seems to crop up when someone has an "ick factor" about a freedom they don't like. Kind of like the bible beaters and men having sex with each other. That is, "penis-anus sex" for those in this thread that apparently need a constant reminder which type of sex results in pregnancy and which gender has which part.

I find it amazingly dickish to send out a pretty nasty insult to a bunch of people in a post stating how you are going to stay out of it.

As suggested by Lassus, it was meant only to be a little nasty, referential. But, fine - I earned that.

Look, I'm not unsympathetic to many of the viewpoints I'm in opposition to here. Heck, as a divorcing parent of two who is heartbroken about not having his kids with him every day, I'm up against some of them. (Having said that, I have the option of receiving financial support as I was not the primary wage earner - I'm turning that down. Nor does it appear that I'll have any difficulty in getting what I consider a 'fair' amount of custody, though it will be less than the 100% I selfishly want. The system, in my case, does not appear to be lined up against me. Guess I'm lucky.)

I think the needs of the child should be primary here and am wholly unpersuaded by claims that that's an independent issue. It would be better if there were less conceptions, sure - but if the kid is going to exist, I believe that both parties bear responsibility to contribute financially to its well being. And I'm getting a strong sense that the non-fiduciary obligations in child rearing are getting seriously underplayed here. (As well as the damages of childbirth, to be frank - it's a pretty transformative event.)

People are being way too cavalier about the acceptability of abortion as a tool in family planning in all cases. For example, I believe that it should be a legal option for individuals to pursue. I do not believe that it's an option that *I* could ever pursue, even if I desperately didn't want that kid to term. I don't think that this is an uncommon position, regarding the morality of abortion to reside in some kind of a gray area. Philosophically, I get the approach of 'if that's your position, that's fine - you just have to being well to bear all the costs for that.' But between my primacy of the child's needs belief and the high number of people that are unwilling to use abortion - I think Sam and et al. are operating from an unrealistic starting point. To that end...

We are not discussing the status quo ante. We are discussing what a just future state might be.

I care more about status quo. If we want to talk future state, develop 100% effective male and female birth control (irrespective of morning after pill (which I'm obviously in favor of)/abortion availability, not that I'm trying to dismiss that as a consideration). That seems easier than the legalistic birth contracts being discussed here. Own your own decisions and expect to have control over only those things you can control.

As an aside, You can't tax people based on demographics or life choices - I'm not sure I follow. I get deductions based on demographics/life choices (I'm a homeowner, I have dependents, etc...). You may or may not want to call it a tax, but smokers will pay higher health insurance premiums in the future. I think we'll see more of this sort of thing in the future (not necessarily specifically wrt health care, but in general).

Let's deal with the actual problems on the table, which are: no significant amount of entrapment; a lack of real reproductive choice for millions of women; a family law system biased against men; a social insurance society that allows 1 in 5 children to go hungry every day; 11% of deadbeats (male and female) being responsible for 54% of outstanding payments, and an education system that doesn't do enough to promote healthy sexual interactions and understanding.

I concur.

As to the oppression of men - here's a simple question. Do you think your life would be easier if you'd been born of the opposite gender?
I say no... and not just because of the much lower likelihood of my being sexually assaulted, losing job opportunities/wages due to my gender/time spent out of the workforce with familial responsibilities, etc...

And happily enough there is no child support until after that as well.

Right, there's no child support until after a person other than the biological donor of the sperm has been (potentially) removed from the decision tree. As such, there is no moral binding of that removed party from the child support requirement.

Right, there's no child support until after a person other than the biological donor of the sperm has been (potentially) removed from the decision tree. As such, there is no moral binding of that removed party from the child support requirement.

They are at the top of the decision tree, they made their decision and they get to live with the consequences.

So, gays don't have any complaints about not being able to get married in Alabama until such time as Alabama allows gay marriage? Women had no complain about not being able to vote until such time they were being able to?

The phrase "societal norms" always seems to crop up when someone has an "ick factor" about a freedom they don't like. Kind of like the bible beaters and men having sex with each other. That is, "penis-anus sex" for those in this thread that apparently need a constant reminder which type of sex results in pregnancy and which gender has which part.

This is a complete non sequitor. I am using the phrase societal norm carefully to speak about what is best for the child. Thoughts about what is actually best for the child change over time. However the principle of do what is best for them does not change and should not change..

It has zero to do with any "ick factor" at all in this context, but if you rather I use a different term with the same meaning and without you summoning an "ick factor" I am not married to the term, but think you should suggest an alternative term since it bother you so much.

I'd separate the two questions. The first one (to bear or not bear the child) should remain with the person doing the bearing, since otherwise you're getting into Chinese government territory. The second (determining the responsibility for financial support) should be based on the two parents' respective abilities to provide it, on the principle that the child's interest is more important than any abstract governing principle between two adults.

The second question still biases the first, because the relative financial status of the parties is known at the time the decision is made. Nor whould the woman be allowed to speculate on the man's future earning potential.

Presumably the man is as aware of the woman's financial status as vice versa, but in any event the child's welfare should be the primary focus of attention, not the assignation of blame between the parents.

The man being able to opt out of parental rights and obligations at the time of the decision doesn't get anywhere near "Chinese government territory."

Obviously not in a legal sense, but if his "opting out" presents abortion as the only option to carrying the child to term and then raising him with no significant means of financial support, it's verging on being a distinction without a difference.

And in my paradigm they have the same responsibility towards seeing to the welfare of their child. Both parents must see after their child (unless, as in adoption*, both parents surrender their rights for the betterment of the child).

* And if that is not how all adoption laws work, with both parents needing to agree, then that is wrong. Children are a shared responsbility (shared privilidge really) of both parents.

Presumably the man is as aware of the woman's financial status as vice versa, but in any event the child's welfare should be the primary focus of attention, not the assignation of blame between the parents.

At the time of the critical decision of whether to take the pregnancy to term, the question of the child's welfare has not ripened.

Obviously not in a legal sense, but if his "opting out" presents abortion as the only option to carrying the child to term and then raising him with no significant means of financial support, it's verging on being a distinction without a difference.

Well, children aren't cheap. Nothing can be done about that reality. If the woman can't afford it, the decision rather makes itself -- much as my decision whether to buy face value courtsides for Knick regular season games makes itself.

Obviously not in a legal sense, but if his "opting out" presents abortion as the only option to carrying the child to term and then raising him with no significant means of financial support, it's verging on being a distinction without a difference.

Well, children aren't cheap. Nothing can be done about that reality. If the woman can't afford it, the decision rather makes itself.

Well, if the man "opts out" of future responsibility, it sure does, though how this distinguishes itself from forced abortion is something I'll let the lawyers ponder. But AFAIC YR's comment says it all.

Well, if the man "opts out" of future responsibility, it sure does, though how this distinguishes itself from forced abortion is something I'll let the lawyers ponder. But AFAIC YR's comment says it all.

Forced abortion? Nobody is forcing her to do anything. On the contrary, she is being given the power to make a decision - and accept the responsibility of that decision. Responsibility for your choices is a foreign concept to some, I know.

If I go on a Best Buy shopping spree and put 10K on my credit card that I can't afford, I'm responsible for that decision. And if people say ahead of time, gee, maybe you ought not do that, but if you do you're responsible, were these people "forcing" me not to buy the big screen TVs and such? No. The notion that "force" was involved is misguided.

Forced abortion? Nobody is forcing her to do anything. On the contrary, she is being given the power to make a decision - and accept the responsibility of that decision. Responsibility for your choices is a foreign concept to some, I know.

So Ray, why doesn't that exact same construct apply to the man? Nobody forced him to father a child?

You seem to be on the "anti-personal responsibility" side here, which is odd for a Libertarian. Why should the father be able to shift the burden of raising his child to the mother and the rest of us who pay taxes?

Why can a sperm donor shift the burden of raising his child to the mother and the rest of us who pay taxes?

Who said I think he should?

But that fact that he can is based on a very specific contract entered into by the mother. It's an open question whether allowing that type of contract is beneficial for society.

Morally, however, I think a minor child has a claim on each parent for 100% of his/her support, regardless of the facts surrounding the conception. If your kids are hungry, you don't get to say, "I paid my 50% and that covered breakfast and lunch, dinner's Mom's responsibility."

Morally, however, I think a minor child has a claim on each parent for 100% of his/her support, regardless of the facts surrounding the conception.

That brings it back to the real issue, which is the welfare of the child. Whether or not the primary burden of the financial support should fall on the mother or the father should rest on their respective financial circumstances, not on their gender.

If your kids are hungry, you don't get to say, "I paid my 50% and that covered breakfast and lunch, dinner's Mom's responsibility."

Exactly. And saying that you wanted the child aborted doesn't get you off the hook.

Morally, however, I think a minor child has a claim on each parent for 100% of his/her support, regardless of the facts surrounding the conception.

Sure. But since the mother has the sole discretion as to whether or not to terminate, she has the ability, after the conception, to wash her hands of the claim. The father doesn't have that right. The point being made here, over and over, is that the mother gets two bites at the apple.

What's more, the mother's second bite is a much more informed bite. I.e., she's aware that she's pregnant and her decision is an either-or, which is much easier decision for a person to process than the hypothetical risk of future pregnancy, which people, especially younger people, are ill-suited to assess.

Why should the father be able to shift the burden of raising his child to the mother and the rest of us who pay taxes?

Obviously because he didn't want the kid :-)

Morally, however, I think a minor child has a claim on each parent for 100% of his/her support, regardless of the facts surrounding the conception.

I tend to agree, except I'd allow an exception for anonymous sperm donors going through sperm banks, I'd also require such sperm banks to do some asset/income verification of the donated sperm recipients.

Regarding the so-called "Father's Rights" Movements, yes there are men who have gotten unfairly screwed over by their ex-wives/GFs/baby mommas, and then a second time by the court system- but the "Father's Rights" movements have never really caught on for 2 primary reasons- they are seen (fairly or not) as a bunch of whiners who are only trying to shirk their responsibilities as men/husbands/fathers and most of these groups do tend to be run or dominated not by your libertarian types, buy rather by openly misogynist ########

Sure. But since the mother has the sole discretion as to whether or not to terminate, she has the ability, after the conception, to wash her hands of the claim. The father doesn't have that right. The point being made here, over and over, is that the mother gets two bites at the apple.

What's more, the mother's second bite is a much more informed bite. I.e., she's aware that she's pregnant and her decision is an either-or, which is much easier decision for a person to process than the hypothetical risk of future pregnancy, which people, especially younger people, are ill-suited to assess.

Well, Im sure you know how I feel about abortion.

But, in any case, the reality is that the mother bears the larger burden of care and support in 90%+ of the cases of unwed parenthood. If anyone were to get "two-bites" and I don't think anyone should, it would be the mother.

Sure. But since the mother has the sole discretion as to whether or not to terminate, she has the ability, after the conception, to wash her hands of the claim. The father doesn't have that right. The point being made here, over and over, is that the mother gets two bites at the apple.

tough titty, life's not fair, some people are born with silver spoons in their mouths and some are born with wooden splinters.

Why should the father be able to shift the burden of raising his child to the mother and the rest of us who pay taxes?

There is no "shifting" of any burden. In a world without abortion there would be shifting. But here, there is abortion, and it's the woman's choice, and therefore the woman's responsibility.

Just because X 'could' result from an action I take part in does not mean I should be forced to pay for X when there was a decision point not involving me wherein someone else made the decision to proceed with X.

Just because X 'could' result from an action I take part in does not mean I should be forced to pay for X when there was a decision point not involving me wherein someone else made the decision to proceed with X.

Ray, if you push a shopping cart in a parking lot towards Andy's car, or throw a rock at his head, and I could stop it, but choose not to (b/c I don't want to drop my ice cream cone), and it causes damage, you're paying/going to jail.

Once you start a course of events, the ability of someone else to intervene doesn't expunge your liability.

If a person throws a baby in a lake, and it drowns, can they get off the murder charge by saying: "There were bystanders that could have saved him"? Your position makes no sense.

But, in any case, the reality is that the mother bears the larger burden of care and support in 90%+ of the cases of unwed parenthood.

Significantly because of an antiquated legal framework in most jurisdictions that apportions "care and support" to the mother and "making money" to the father. Unsurprisingly, in jurisdictions where gay marriage is not permitted, gay marriage rates are very low.

So Ray, why doesn't that exact same construct apply to the man? Nobody forced him to father a child?

Wrong, actually. Under current law and societal norms, the mother forces him to father a child if she carries a pregnancy to term against his wishes. Cringe all you want if that steps on the toes of your religious dogma (whether those dogma be Catholic or liberal men making sure they don't run afoul of the PC police) but it's simply the formal logic of the facts.

I didn't want the tumor they took out of my neck a few years back, are you saying I could have skipped out on the bill?

did you want them to remove it from your neck? Then yes you had to pay.
If not, you actually have a battery claim against them for removing it.

For me, the sperm donor wanted to abort the kid therefore he shouldn't be completed to later support the kid, can only remotely fly if abortion is morally neutral.

1: You are never ever gonna convince me of that.
2: Men make more on average than women.
3: Allowing men to withhold financial support to children by declaring, I never wanted the brat, would be a great way for society to incentivise women to have abortions, I find that to be repugnant.

If a person throws a baby in a lake, and it drowns, can they get off the murder charge by saying: "There were bystanders that could have saved him"? Your position makes no sense.

There is no baby. I know it's hard to grasp, this fundamental element of our agreed upon social contract post Roe, but the baby doesn't exist until "viability" in the second trimester. Your analogy is false.

That brings it back to the real issue, which is the welfare of the child.

Ok, then I have two solutions:

1. Make abortion illegal. Then there's no decision to be made, and thus the father has no argument for opting out. He must help pay.

Thus - presto - the child is taken care of. So I presume you will like this solution, Andy. It deals with the welfare of the child, which according to you is the "real issue."

2. Keep abortion legal, but give the father the sole discretion whether the mother should have an abortion or carry the baby to term. If he decides that she is to carry the baby to term, then both of them are responsible for providing for the child.

I imagine you are fine with this too, Andy? Welfare of the child! Welfare of the child!

----

Of course you are not fine with either of these. So stop saying that it's a welfare of the child issue, and not a straight up man-woman issue with the operating principle that the woman should be able to screw over the man because women once had the shorter end of the stick and, to quote Johnny Sycophant's scholarly argument in #752, "tough titty."

Well, if the man "opts out" of future responsibility, it sure does, though how this distinguishes itself from forced abortion is something I'll let the lawyers ponder. But AFAIC YR's comment says it all.

Well, if she didn't want to raise a child with no support from the father, or have an abortion, maybe she should not have engaged in penis-to-vagina-sex. Oh wait, we couldn't possibly hold anybody to that standard.

If subject to a legal regime that divests the father of meaningful contact/authority with respect to the child, that's not an irrational response.

you are arguing what is largely myth, there is no epidemic of men cut off from their children
sure I've heard the same stories you have about the evil ex who won't let the father see his kids but takes him to court if the support check is 10 minutes late

Of course the only person I know who made that claim himself was a lying scumbag.
Saying that the ex- is depriving the father from access to his kids is generally the 1st, and 3rd thing the deadbeat says when summonsed back to family court (the 2nd things is, "I have no money"

Sure sometimes these guys are telling the truth, women are no angels either (hey I'm married I know), but most are lying, and sure the courts will make mistakes (because judges are human)

you are arguing what is largely myth, there is no epidemic of men cut off from their children
sure I've heard the same stories you have about the evil ex who won't let the father see his kids but takes him to court if the support check is 10 minutes late

I think the more realistic situation is the Alec Baldwin scenario, where the child is staying with his ex-wife who poisons the well against him and makes the child think badly of him and therefore both mother and child make life difficult for him as far as visitation, phone calls, etc. So not "cut off" but, as said in the quote you responded to, "divests the father of meaningful contact/authority with respect to the child."

you are arguing what is largely myth, there is no epidemic of men cut off from their children
sure I've heard the same stories you have about the evil ex who won't let the father see his kids but takes him to court if the support check is 10 minutes late

No, I'm talking about the basic legal regime in place in many states. Take, for example, my future brother-in-law. Under his applicable state law, his outcome (which is off the charts good, because he has many favorable facts in his direction, is that he gets one weekday a week and 2 weekends a month. In other words, he gets 8 days a month, and the mother gets 22. He was estatic at this outcome - he feared much worse

The mother has veto power on all major life decisions. For example, the kid is remarkably bright, and a result, the father brought him to the reasonably good private school in the next town to see if they'd take him with financial aid. The school accepted him and reduced the tuition to a level which the father could afford (he works in a factory in the area). Delighted, he told the mother. The mother pronounced that she "didnt want to lose her son" if he starting mixing with rich folks, and refused to send him to the private school. The boy now attends the local public school with the mothers friends, which is one of those awful failing schools you hear about on TV.

Also, I went to school with the child in a landmark case in NY state - R.B. v. S.B. - was pretty good friends with the kid at the time, actually, and watched it unfold. That's one of the rare cases in NY where child support was, in fact, reduced because the mother had so thoroughly brainwashed the kid agaisnt the father.

There are myths on both sides of the coin here - the myth of the mother cutting dad off and the myth of deadbeat dad who doesnt care about anything but his next lay.

Of course you are not fine with either of these. So stop saying that it's a welfare of the child issue, and not a straight up man-woman issue with the operating principle that the woman should be able to screw over the man because women once had the shorter end of the stick and, to quote Johnny Sycophant's scholarly argument in #752, "tough titty."

Precisely.

Andy doesn't have much use for "low-status" males -- that's blatantly obvious from his political scribblings and reiterated a short stint upthread. Thus his solution is that the woman can do anything she wants sexually and retain all the decision-making power if a pregnancy results and have all of it subsidized by men.

They already exist. They are called condoms. Don't want to risk child support? Wear one.

Point in time birth control is not universally effective, by definition. This also fails to address the point at hand, which is that "pregnancy" is not the controlling state. Carrying the pregnancy to term - a decision made exclusively by the female sex partner - is the controlling state. Responsibility resides with decision-making.

Point in time birth control is not universally effective, by definition. This also fails to address the point at hand, which is that "pregnancy" is not the controlling state. Carrying the pregnancy to term - a decision made exclusively by the female sex partner - is the controlling state. Responsibility resides with decision-making.

Morally, however, I think a minor child has a claim on each parent for 100% of his/her support, regardless of the facts surrounding the conception.

That brings it back to the real issue, which is the welfare of the child. Whether or not the primary burden of the financial support should fall on the mother or the father should rest on their respective financial circumstances, not on their gender.

Ok, then I have two solutions:

1. Make abortion illegal. Then there's no decision to be made, and thus the father has no argument for opting out. He must help pay.

Thus - presto - the child is taken care of. So I presume you will like this solution, Andy. It deals with the welfare of the child, which according to you is the "real issue."

2. Keep abortion legal, but give the father the sole discretion whether the mother should have an abortion or carry the baby to term. If he decides that she is to carry the baby to term, then both of them are responsible for providing for the child.

I imagine you are fine with this too, Andy? Welfare of the child! Welfare of the child!

----

Of course you are not fine with either of these. So stop saying that it's a welfare of the child issue,

You've posed two alternative solutions to the one I gave.

Your first option negates the woman's right to choose, reinstating the pre-Roe v Wade laws of many states.

Your second option effectively presents a Hobson's choice to a woman who doesn't want to abort the child but who doesn't have the financial means to support it.

My option preserves the woman's choice, and only shifts the financial burden to the man if the woman is unable to pay for the child's upbringing on her own. It's a question of financial resources, not of gender.

My option preserves the woman's choice, and only shifts the financial burden to the man if the woman is unable to pay for the child's upbringing on her own. It's a question of financial resources, not of gender.

Why would you shift the burden to "the man" rather than socialize it universally? Because "sex?"

Andy doesn't have much use for "low-status" males -- that's blatantly obvious from his political scribblings and reiterated a short stint upthread.

That assertion rests on your persistent conflation of "low status" with "low income", when all I'm talking about on this thread is "low-life" behavior. I can assure you that a sizable percentage of my better friends and acquaintances are of a considerably lower financial "status" than you apparently realize.

Thus his solution is that the woman can do anything she wants sexually and retain all the decision-making power if a pregnancy results and have all of it subsidized by men.

Read #781 and previous posts of mine a bit less selectively, and you'll see that this is far from the case. I have no idea of your financial status, but if you were to knock up the Duchess of Westrogothia, I wouldn't expect you to be supplying the new arrival with gold plated teething rings. OTOH if you're financially comfortable and you knock up the cleaning lady, you shouldn't be putting her in a position of having an abortion or raising the child on a cleaning lady's wages, which apparently is your position.

OTOH if you're financially comfortable and you knock up the cleaning lady, you shouldn't be putting her in a position of having an abortion or raising the child on a cleaning lady's wages, which apparently is your position.

OTOH if you're financially comfortable and you knock up the cleaning lady, you shouldn't be putting her in a position of having an abortion or raising the child on a cleaning lady's wages, which apparently is your position.

Why "shouldn't" you? What is the argument, other than tough titty?

Of course that's exactly what you're proposing: Get an abortion or "tough titty" about the child's future. My "tough titty" is directed only at men who have the ability to pay but want to get a Mulligan.

OTOH if you're financially comfortable and you knock up the cleaning lady, you shouldn't be putting her in a position of having an abortion or raising the child on a cleaning lady's wages, which apparently is your position.

But you haven't answered why. Among the myriad of logical fails here is the embedded assumption that "I've" put her "in a position," of pregnancy when in fact she participated in the PIVS as much as I did. As noted upthread, that's a paternalisitic and anachronistic perspective that denies women true equality and true sexual equality. The only thing you can be saying is that women don't enjoy sex as much as men, or don't want sex as much as men, or some combination thereof.

That's really what's underlying all of this -- the only thing justifying the disparate treatment of men and women proposed is that the men somehow got something out of the sexual encounter that the woman didn't get. It can really be nothing else.

Of course that's exactly what you're proposing: Get an abortion or "tough titty" about the child's future. My "tough titty" is directed only at men who have the ability to pay but want to get a Mulligan.

The men give up their parental rights though. The decision isn't free to them.

I have no idea of your financial status, but if you were to knock up the Duchess of Westrogothia, I wouldn't expect you to be supplying the new arrival with gold plated teething rings. OTOH if you're financially comfortable and you knock up the cleaning lady, you shouldn't be putting her in a position of having an abortion or raising the child on a cleaning lady's wages, which apparently is your position.

Women aren't "knocked up." They choose to have sex. They have agency in the world. They're not victims of a crime.

Ray, if you push a shopping cart in a parking lot towards Andy's car, or throw a rock at his head, and I could stop it, but choose not to (b/c I don't want to drop my ice cream cone), and it causes damage, you're paying/going to jail.

This would be a great analogy if not for the fact that it's a horrific one.

The actual damage to the car or by the rock, the aggressor would responsibility for. But the results of the intercourse *isn't* a baby. It's a handful of cells in a tissue mass.

By your logic, if I damaged Andy's car in the parking lot and he slips on a banana peel and breaks his skull while waiting for the tow truck, I'm certainly not responsible for that.

I'm amazed that of all the places to run into a bunch of anti-choicers against sexual freedom, this would be the one.

Of course that's exactly what you're proposing: Get an abortion or "tough titty" about the child's future. My "tough titty" is directed only at men who have the ability to pay but want to get a Mulligan.

The men give up their parental rights though. The decision isn't free to them.

Except that I've already said that a man who keeps up payments** should retain full visitation rights. Beyond that, the fact that he didn't want the child to be born is rather strong evidence against him, but that shouldn't mean that he should be cut off from contact with the child unless he's abusive.

But women have full control over whether their uterus is implanted. (Other than in the case of rape, obviously, but no one's suggesting that these principles apply to pregnancies resulting from non-consensual encounters.)

I suppose there's another wrinkle wherein a woman can prove some kind of fraud in agreed-upon birth control, such as "I consented based on his representation that he'd pull out." I'd probably treat that situation differently.

That assertion rests on your persistent conflation of "low status" with "low income", when all I'm talking about on this thread is "low-life" behavior. I can assure you that a sizable percentage of my better friends and acquaintances are of a considerably lower financial "status" than you apparently realize.

And given the fact that they are mostly pool-room hustlers, they are probably considerably more "low-life", than you apparently realize.